There are 150 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Calvin Johnson TD

Originally posted by kingairta:
To me it looked more like he set the ball on the ground as he hopped up thinking the play was good.

To me he lost control of the ball when it hit the ground.
  • boast
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 74,442
Originally posted by kingairta:
To me it looked more like he set the ball on the ground as he hopped up thinking the play was good.

that's what i saw.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by HessianDud:

it was a catch.

Do you know what a conclusory statement is?

This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

It was a "catch" by a general understanding of the word catch. He received the ball and didn't drop it immediately.

It was not a "catch" based on the current NFL rules defining a catch. You even agree the refs got it right.

The problem everyone has is the rule is stupid. It should be changed to recognize what CJ did as a catch. I agree with that too. That doesn't change the fact that at the time the play was made it did not qualify as a "catch"
  • Bille
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 249
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:

On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.

On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.

That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.

I agree with this explanation.

The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession

Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:

"OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."

You are just lawyering the rule, the rule is you must maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch that means untill you lie completely still on the ground and not just untill you get two feet in bound or get a knee or something down.

You see it called this way all the time and people always complain because the rule is stupid, but to say it is a catch is just plain wrong and to try and argue that it is a catch is pointless because it wasn't a catch.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:

On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.

On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.

That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.

I agree with this explanation.

The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession

Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:

"OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."

This rule is an exception to your understanding that "a player is down when a knee hits the ground"

Your understanding of the catch rule is wrong. There is no instantaneous possession of the ball when your feet plus butt plus knees plus extended hand hit the turf.

CJ had to maintain possession "after" he touched the ground. But he also had to go to the ground first ("if a player goes to the grond"). You are trying to say he was done going to the ground before he completed the act.

It looks to me like he was palming the ball as he was spun to the ground. The problem he has is the ball popped out and it hit the ground before he recovered it. Therefore he failed to satisfy the rule requiring that "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground"

There is nothing in the rules requiring him to bobble it as he is going down. It all depends on how the collision with the ground changes his possession.
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:

On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.

On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.

That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.

I agree with this explanation.

The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession

Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:

"OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."

This rule is an exception to your understanding that "a player is down when a knee hits the ground"

Your understanding of the catch rule is wrong. There is no instantaneous possession of the ball when your feet plus butt plus knees plus extended hand hit the turf.

CJ had to maintain possession "after" he touched the ground. But he also had to go to the ground first ("if a player goes to the grond"). You are trying to say he was done going to the ground before he completed the act.

It looks to me like he was palming the ball as he was spun to the ground. The problem he has is the ball popped out and it hit the ground before he recovered it. Therefore he failed to satisfy the rule requiring that "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground"

There is nothing in the rules requiring him to bobble it as he is going down. It all depends on how the collision with the ground changes his possession.

I disagree.

You make a couple of conclusory, self serving and vague statements.

Where does it say that: "This rule is an exception to your understanding that 'a player is down when a knee hits the ground'"? On the contrary the statement in the rule: "whether in the field of play or the end zone" clearly implies that the interpretation is supposed to be unformily applied without exception.

The second sentence of your second paragraph makes no sense to me. It wasn't what I said. I'll try to spell it out.

I ask: If a player has possession of the ball and his knee touches the ground, is he down and is the play over, even if the rest of his body has not yet hit the ground? The answer is clearly, YES. You see this rule regularly applied when the ball is fumbled/ripped out of the hands of running backs as they are going down. If the knee isn't down, it's a fumble; if it is down, no fumble.

The rule: "He must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground" Two crucial determinations to be made: "Did the player have possession and control"? and "How do you define touching the ground"? That's it.

I've already made the argument for "touching the ground"; when the knee or body touches. Not the whole body. Not the hands. Other wise you have the absurd result of defenders just holding up the receiver's upperbody, even if both knees and legs are dragging the ground: No catch.

Now: Did (i) he have possession and control, and (ii) did he maintain possession and control after he "touches the ground"?

Question (i) is crucial and that is why I brought up the question of bobbling the ball. Because if he was bobbling the ball as he hit the ground . . . clearly, no catch. However, most agree: He caught the ball cleanly with both hands. Transferred it to one hand in which it was firmly grasped. At that point did he have possession and control? Watch the replay: I contend that he did.

Still up to that point it wasn't enough to constitute a completed catch. He had to maintain possession and control until "after he touch[ed] the ground". When did he "touch the ground"? His butt hits the ground, both knees hit the ground . . . yeah, IMO he definitely has touched the ground. He is down as interepreted by the rules. Did he have possession and control? I say yes. But that's a matter of judgement on the part of the refs. If they felt he was still in the act of catching the ball, then no, he did not have control. But to me: Catching with two hands. Transferring it with a firm grasp in one hand. Yes, he's got it under control. A fraction of a split second later it's "after he touches the ground". Catch. Touchdown.

Another split second later: His hand crashes down onto the ground and the ball pops out.

You said in your post: ''The problem he has is the ball popped out and it hit the ground before he recovered it". That's too vague and, in any case, relevant only if he did not have control until after he touches the ground. Did you watch the replay? The ball in the firm grasp of his hand hits the ground and that is why it pops out! You imply that it pops out before that which is not accurate.

Anyway, people are too invested in their position to possibly see it in another light.

My only point is: The refs could have called it a TD and been perfectly within the rules. IMO that would have been the JUST ruling.
Dumbest rule ever, should have been a TD.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

I disagree.
Thats fine...can't have a discussion if we all group think

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

You make a couple of conclusory, self serving and vague statements.
Could you identify them in your reply?

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Where does it say that: "This rule is an exception to your understanding that 'a player is down when a knee hits the ground'"? On the contrary the statement in the rule: "whether in the field of play or the end zone" clearly implies that the interpretation is supposed to be unformily applied without exception.
The exception is INHERENT when you have a rule that gives different criteria for a specific condition. If this rule wasn't an exception we wouldn't need it. This is a fairly basic point you need to understand before we go any further. There is no point even responding to the rest of your arguments if you can't grasp this.

Going to the ground changes how they decide the ruling of a "catch" (i.e., this is an EXCEPTION to normal catching rules)

Do you agree or disagree?
IMO it looks like he purposefully let go of it. Or more specifically, he purposefully used it to kind of bounce himself back up, since he assumed his completion was done.

I think it was a TD.

BUT

I kinda like the new rule. Reason being, I think sometimes people get away with stuff when they purposefully let go of the ball at the very instant they are allowed to, or were allowed to.

BUT

I think in the endzone you should not have to complete the process so much. Afterall, when running it in once the ball breaks the plane the TD is scored. So for catching it, I think it should be the same too. He caught it within the endzone, at that instant that should be a TD.

I think they should tweak this one.
i remember Chad 85 have an overturned touchdown against us a while back because of this rule. he didnt complete the catch or something.
Originally posted by SFCH3DDERZ:
i remember Chad 85 have an overturned touchdown against us a while back because of this rule. he didnt complete the catch or something.

yeah i think i remember that. he was facing clements and it was on thursday night
f**k this, it was a TD, stupid NFL cost me a 4 team parlay FUK U Godell
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Dumbest rule ever, should have been a TD.
why's everyone so mad? Same thing happened to Crabtree against the Bears last year, except it wasn't gonna be a touchdown.
  • dman
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,453
I hope CJ does something crazy next time he catches the ball in the end zone.

Like just stands there for 10 minutes with the ball secured in both hands ... anything to mock that nonsense that was called.